Skip to main content

Full text of "Hamiltonian monodromy via geometric quantization and theta functions"

See other formats

Hamiltonian monodromy via geometric 
quantization and theta functions 

Nicola Sansonetto and Mauro Spera 
■ - ■_ Dipartiinento di Informatica, Universita degli Studi di Verona 

Q ■ Ca' Vignal 2, Strada Le Grazie 15, 37134 Verona 

^^ ■ e-mail addresses:, 

m ; Abstract 

^^ ' In this paper, Hamiltonian monodromy is addressed from the point of view 

of geometric quantization, and various differential geometric aspects thereof are 

r^ ' dealt with, all related to holonomics of suitable flat connections. In the case 

^^ , of completely integrablc Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom, a 

link is established between monodromy and (2-levcl) theta functions, by resort- 
ing to the by now classical differential geometric intepretation of the latter as 
covariantly constant sections of a flat connection, via the heat equation. Fur- 
thermore, it is shown that monodromy is tied to the braiding of the Weiestrafi 
roots pertaining to a Lagrangian torus, when endowed with a natural complex 
structure (making it an elliptic curve) manufactured from a natural basis of 
^ ' cycles thereon. Finally, a new derivation of the monodromy of the spherical 

CN , pendulum is provided. 



Keywords: Integrable Hamiltonian systems - Hamiltonian Monodromy - Ge- 
ometric Quantization - Theta Functions 
t^ ■ 
O ■ MSC 2000: 70H06, 81S10, 53D50, 14H42, 14H52 

oo ■ 

1 Introduction 

^\f ' In this paper, acting within the framework of Bohr-Sommerfcld and Kahlcrian 

geometric quantization, we discuss classical and quantum monodromy from sev- 
eral viewpoints, all related to parallel transport via suitable flat connections. 
Monodromy, together with the so-called Chcrn-Duistermaat class, provides an 
obstruction to the global definition of action-angle variables for completely in- 
tegrable Hamiltonian systems (|13|,l26j: see Subsection 2.1 for details; we do not 
deal with the non-commutative case, for which wc refer to [12 [H]). Our spe- 
cific contributions consist, first af all, in reinterpreting the Ehresmann-Weinstcin 
connection arising from the traditional treatment (see e.g. [131 [SHU]) in vector 
bundle terms. Subsequently, we relate monodromy to the freedom of choice of a 
prequantum connection, and in particular we find that it may be viewed as the 
obstruction to patching together geometric prequantization bundles equipped 
with local "BS-adapted" connections (see Section 3 for precise definitions). Also, 

we discuss it in relation to t/g -equivalence of connections (connected component 
of the identity of the gauge group G oi a. prequantum line bundle), showing, 
in addition, that it can be detected via a shift of the quantum action oper- 
ators (constructed via the recipe of geometric quantization), see Theorem 4. 
Indeed, in experiments, monodromy manifests itself via a shift of the energy lev- 
els (in HI)- Moreover, in the case of completely integrablc Hamiltonian systems 
with two degrees of freedom, we further relate monodromy to theta function 
theory, via the differential geometric interpretation of the heat equation fulfilled 
by the fc-level theta functions going back to [3H1 [31 HZ] ■ More precisely. Theorem 
5 shows the existence of a representation of the fundamental group tti (B) of the 
base space B of the Lagrangian fibration in tori pertaining to a Hamiltonian 
completely integrable system with two degrees of freedom, via the holonomy of 
a flat connection living on a natural complex vector bundle (of rank 2) made up 
of the (2-level) theta functions (pulled back) over B. The non triviality of this 
representation signals the emergence of monodromy. The upshot is that mon- 
odromy can be read via a Berry-type phase shift on the space of theta functions 
of level 2, manifesting itself as a "phase gate" (see e.g. [TU] and Section 4). The 
appearance of theta functions in this context is quite natural from a mechanical 
point of view: briefly, this goes as follows. Given a basis of cycles on a Liouville 
torus, constructed as in [571 [2E] - see also Section 4 below - a natural complex 
structure thereon is determined upon setting 

r = -e + iT, 

where Q is the rotation number and T > is the (Poincare) first return time of a 
point on one of the basis cycles, denoted by 71 (the rotation number is essentially 
the discrepancy, measured on the cycle 71 - corresponding to one of the actions 
- between the final and initial position of the aforementioned point, and one 
can easily manufacture a cycle 72 from such an arrangement; we notice that in 
[571 HH], the roles of the 7's are interchanged). Therefore, each Liouville torus 
comes equipped with a polarization making it an abelian variety, and hence 
with a Kahler structure (it goes without saying that the original symplectic 
form vanishes when restricted to a Liouville torus), and we have a family of 
(unobstructed) geometric quantizations of such tori, yielding precisely the theta 
functions of level k as their quantum Hilbert space (also, they can be adjusted 
so as to yield orthonormal bases thereof). Upon varying r on the Poincare 
upper half-plane H, one gets a vector bundle whose generic fibre is given by the 
2-level theta functions, which has a natural flat connection for which the latter 
are the covariantly constant sections. The ensuing parallel transport translates 
into the heat equation fulfilled by the thetas. This "universal" construction, 
pulled back to B via the local action variable map, yields the above mentioned 
flat connection, which incorporates monodromy (Theorem 5). 

We also point out the direct relationship between the variation of the rotation 
number (producing monodromy) and the braiding of the WeierstraB roots of 
the elliptic curve associated to r, again via theta functions; also, a possibly new 
quick derivation of the monodromy of the spherical pendulum (see e.g. |131lll| ). 
is devised, relying on the above techniques. 

The present work is organized as follows. In Section 2 we first collect some 
background material on monodromy, with special emphasis on the two degrees 
of freedom case - where some simplifications occur, notably the vanishing of 

the Chern-Duistermaat class (cf. |13] ) and, what is crucial for our analysis, the 
existence of the rotation number (see e.g. [Tl]) - and subsequently addressing 
geometric quantization, focussing our attention on gauge equivalence of con- 
nections and reviewing the Bohr-Sommerfeld conditions, together with a brief 
discussion of Hitchin's treatment of polarization independence tailored to our 
purposes ([17]). Also, we give a short account of basic theta function theory and 
its relationship with elliptic curves in WeierstraB form. The discussion of new 
results starts in Section 3. First we discuss the various differential geometric 
aspects of monodromy hinted at above. In Section 4 we deal with the theta func- 
tion approach previously illustrated, and we establish the relationship between 
the variation of the rotation number and the braiding of the WeierstraB roots of 
the elliptic curve associated to r. In Section 5 we derive the monodromy of the 
spherical pendulum (see e.g. [131 E]), by analysing suitable elliptic integrals 
of the first and third kind, and (Section 6) we close the paper with some final 
remarks and outlook. 

2 An overview of integrable systems, geometric 
quantization and theta functions 

In this section we review some basic facts about completely integrable Hamil- 
tonian systems, geometric quantization and theta function theory, for the sake 
of readability. We will also introduce the notation that will be used throughout 
the paper. 

2.1 Completely integrable Hamiltonian systems 

Let {M,uj) be a 2n-dimcnsional symplcctic manifold, and fix /i : A/ — > M, a 
smooth function on M (the Hamiltonian), with its associated vector field Xh, 
fulfilling ixh^ = —dh. The triple (M,uj,h) is called a Hamiltonian system 
on M, with n degrees of freedom, and it is said to be completely integrable 
if it admits n mutually Poisson-commuting first integrals, which are linearly 
independent almost everywhere in M , and, restricting the latter, if necessary, the 
joint level sets of the first integrals are compact and connected. The Liouville- 
Arnol'd Theorem (see e.g. [UEIIII]) gives sufficient conditions for the complete 
intcgrability of a Hamiltonian system. 

Theorem 1 (Liouville-Arnol'd). Let {AI,uj) be a 2n- dimensional symplectic 
manifold. Let f = (/i,...,/„) : M — > R" be a surjective subm,ersion (i.e. 
the energy-momentum mapping^, such that its components pairwise Poisson- 
commute. Let B be the set of regular values of f . Then for each h ^ B: 

1. the compact and connected components f^^ib) of f^^{h) are diffeomorphic 

to T"; 

2. there exists an open neighborhood Ut of b in B and a diffeomorphism 

{I,<p):f-\Ut,)^Vxr (1) 

with V an open subset of R" such that I — (/i, • • • , /„) ~ k o f for some 
diffeomorphism k : f{Ub) — > V . 

3. The coordinates (/, <p) on M are Darboux coordinates, that is 

u; = dl Ad(f (2) 

where I is regarded, for future use also, as a row vector, whereas cp = (<pi, ...(p„)^ 
is a column vector (see also Subsection 3.2). From a geometric point of view 
the Liouville-Arnol'd Theorem ensures that M has a T"-bundle structure with 
Lagrangian fibres; moreover, at the (scmi-)local level f~^{B) is a Lagrangian 
toric principal bundle with structure group T", the fibres are Lagrangian and 
the structure group acts in a Hamiltonian way, with momentum map given by 
the projection bundle map. The construction of the toric principal bundle or, 
equivalently, the existence of global action-angle coordinates is only (semi-)local; 
indeed, Duistermaat proved the following: 

Theorem 2. ([13]) The T'-bundle n : f-^{B) — > R" is topologically trivial if 
and only if the monodromy and the Chern- Duistermaat class of the T^ -bundle 
are trivial. Moreover if the symplectic form is exact then the existence of global 
action-angle coordinates is equivalent to the triviality of the Lagrangian toric 

See also [55]. 

Remarks. 1. Geometrically, monodromy is the obstruction preventing the 
T"-bundle from being a principal bundle with structure group T", whilst 
the Chern-Duistermaat class is the obstruction to the existence of a global 
section of the T"-bundle. 

2. Observe that in the case of a system with two degrees of freedom possessing 
an isolated critical value (of focus-focus type) of the energy-momentum 
map /, the Chern-Duistermaat class is trivial since B admits a Leray 
cover with empty triple intersections. Therefore the only obstruction to 
the triviality of the fibration is monodromy. We shall assume this condition 
in the sequel. 

Zung ( |40j ) gives a sufficient condition for the non-triviality of monodromy 
near isolated focus-focus singularities: more precisely, the (local) monodromy 
near a topologically stable focus-focus point (in the interior of the energy- 
momentum range) is non-trivial. This result will be used in Section 4. 

It will be convenient for us to study Hamiltonian monodromy from a dif- 
ferential geometric point of view (see [36l [131 El)- Indeed it is well-known 
(|36j) that a Lagrangian fibration admits an affine, flat, torsion free connec- 
tion V^^'" : TM — > VM - the vertical bundle over M - on the Lagrangian 
leaves, which is an Ehresmann good connection for the fibration (i.e. that is 
every smooth curve on the base has a horizontal lift). The Gi(n,Z)-holonomy 
representation /io?(V^'"') of V^'"' is the monodromy representation of the T"- 
bundle tt : f^^{B) — > M", therefore if the monodromy is non trivial, then the 
T"-bundle is not principal. Moreover the monodromy representation actually 
takes values in 5i(n,Z) upon choosing suitable bases of the tangent spaces of 
the base space. In Subsection 3.1 we will reformulate the above discussion in 
vector bundle terms. 

2.2 Geometric quantization 

Let us now briefly review the basics of geometric quantization; we refer to 
[5^1 [3 HH im [201 for a complete account. Recall that if (Af , w) is a symplectic 
manifold of (real) dimension 2n such that [^w] € if^(M, Z), then the Wcil- 
Kostant Theorem states that there exists a complex line bundle (i,V,/i) over 
M equipped with a hermitian metric h and a compatible connection V with 
curvature F\j = ui. Hence [ui] = ci{L), the first Chern class of L — > M. The 
connection V is called a prequantum connection and L —* M the prequantum 
line bundle. The different choices of L — > M and V are parametrized by the 
first cohomology group H^{M, S^) (see e.g. [39], Ch.8). In more detail (see also 
|24j ■ 1.7), given any complex line bundle L -^ M, the connections thereon are 
classified, up to gauge equivalence, by their curvature (fixing the topological type 
of the line bundle, via the first Chern class) and by their holonomy, specified, 
in turn, on a basis of (real) homology 1-cycles [7^], for iJi(M, R), of dimension 
&i, the first Betti number of M - represented, for instance, by smooth curves 
passing through a given point. The holonomy is trivial if M is simply connected. 
The gauge group G consists, in this case, of all smooth maps g : M —f S^ 
- explicitly, g : x 1— *■ exp[i (/j(x)], obvious notation - and it is not connected in 
general, its connected components being parametrized by the degree of the maps 
g : M —f S^ . The connected component (of the identity) of Q will be denoted 
by Qo, as usual, and will play an important role in what follows. 

Given a connection Vq, any other connection is of the form V = Vq + a, 
with a e A^(Af), (i.e. they build up an affinc space modelled on the space of 
1-forms K^{M)) and the relation between their respective curvatures is 

Fv = i^vo + da (3) 

Therefore, the curvatures are the same if and only if a is closed. This being the 
case, a determines a de Rham cohomology class [a] £ H^{M, R), fully recovered 
via the period map 

H\M,R) 3[a]^ i f a,..., f a] 


The gauge group Q acts on connections via 

V ^V + g-dg^^ ^\7 -idip (5) 

Therefore, the set of all gauge inequivalent connections (possessing the same 
curvature) is clearly given by 

H\M,W)/H^M,Z) (6) 

and, if M is a torus, then the above set is again a torus, the Jacobian of M. 
If the initial connection has zero curvature, then the above space parametrises 
flat connections up to gauge equivalence. 

Coming back to the specific geometric quantization setting, given a La- 
grangian submanifold A of the symplectic manifold M , the symplectic 2-form 
to vanishes upon restriction to A by definition, and any (semi-local) symplectic 
potential 6 becomes a closed form thereon, defining a (semi-local) connection 
form pertaining to the restriction of the prequantum connection V, denoted by 

the same symbol. The latter is a flat connection and a global covariantly con- 
stant section of the restriction of the prequantum line bundle exists if and only 
if it has trivial holonomy, that is, the induced character x '■ 7ri(A) — *■ U{1) is 
trivial (see e.g. [31]), or, equivalently, that the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition is 

—e ei/i(i\/,Z) i.e. 1 9 C, 27:1. (7) 

for any closed loop 7 in A. 

A covariantly constant section (which we call WKB-, or BS-wave function) 
takes the form 

s(to) := holj{S/) ■ s(too) = e''-'i s(mo) (8) 

with 7 denoting any path connecting a chosen point rriQ in A with a generic 
point TO € A, hol^{V) being the holonomy along 7 of the restriction to A of 
the prequantum connection V. The r.h.s. of ^ tacitly assumes the choice of a 
trivialization of L \\ — > A around ttiq and m in a corresponding local chart. 

Remarks. 1. We stress the fact that the Bohr-Sommcrfeld condition forces 
us to deal with t/g -equivalence classes (i.e. the degree of the gauge maps 
must be zero) in order to avoid trivialities. See in particular Subsection 

2. Our definition of WKB-wave function is slightly different from the conven- 
tional one (see e.g. [33] )■ Indeed we do not require square-integrability and 
we do not twist the prequantization bundle with Av (whose smooth sec- 
tions consist of the complex n- forms on A), thus neglecting the "amplitude- 
squared" . 

3. There is a version of the Bohr-Sommcrfeld condition incorporating the 
Maslov class, but we shall not need this refinement in what follows. 

We shall resume the above discussion in Section 3. 

We also recall that the prequantum connection V allows the construction of 
the (Hermitian) prequantum observables Q{-) via the formula 

Q(/)--«Vx, +/ = -*^/-*x,e + / (9) 

The connection is determined up to a closed 1-form, yielding a corresponding 
ambiguity in the definition of the quantum observable Q{f) attached to /. This 
fact will be exploited in the sequel (see again Section 3). 

In the Kahler case one can perform holomorphic quantization, whereby one 
takes the space of holomorphic sections H^{L, J) of a holomorphic prequantum 
line bundle, provided it is not trivial, as the Hilbert space of the theory (J 
denotes a complex structure on Af , see e.g. [T7] for details). In this case there is 
a canonically defined connection, called the Chern, or Chern-Bott connection, 
compatible with both the hermitian and the holomorphic structure (cf. [16j). 
Independence of polarization (i.e. of the complex structure, in this case) is 
achieved once one finds a (projectively) fiat connection on the vector bundle 
V ^r T with fibre H^{L, J) (of constant dimension, under suitable assumptions 
provided by the Kodaira vanishing theorem) over the (Tcichmiillcr) space of 
complex structures T. An important example, which will be needed later on, 
is provided by the fc-lcvel thcta functions, which can be viewed as (a basis of) 
the space of holomorphic sections of a holomorphic line bundle (the fcth tensor 

product of the theta line bundle) defined on a principally polarized abelian 
variety (|38l [SI [T7]. see also [30]). It follows from the Riemann-Roch theorem 
that this space has (complex) dimension k. In dimension two, the role of T is 
played by the Poincare upper half plane H (a complex structure being labelled 
by T € H). The covariant constancy of the thetas is ascribed to their fulfilment 
of the heat equation. In the following section we give some extra details on 
theta functions needed for the sequel. 

2.3 Elliptic integrals and theta functions 

In this subsection we collect some facts about elliptic integrals and theta func- 
tions in one variable, in view of future use. The theory is thoroughly expounded 
in many classical texts, see e.g. among others [25l EH EU [37l [TBI [18] . We shall 
use this material in Sections 4 and 5. 

The Weierstrafi canonical forms of the elliptic integrals of the first, second 
and third kind read, respectively: 

^ f dz f zdz f dz , ^ 

h = / , h = / , h = / ; 10) 


P{x) := 4x3 __ g^^ _ ^^ ^ 4(-^ _ g^)(-^ _ g^>)(-^ _ g^) (--^-^^ 

with ei + 62 + 63 = (the 62;'s are all distinct); in /s, c is required not to be a 
root of P. The elliptic integral /i above is explicitly inverted by the celebrated 
Weiestraf5 function p = p(z, 32,53) = p{z,t), fulfiUing y^ ~ P{x), giving rise to 
an elliptic curve C, with x = p, y = pf. Then C = C/Z + Zt, the torus defined 
by quotienting C by a normalized lattice Z + Zr, where t = — € C, '^t > 0) 
(ratio of (half)-periods). One has e^ = p(tJi), where lui = lu, uj2 ^ lo + uj' , 
UJ3 = uj' . The (Jacobi) modulus (squared) k^ (with fc € C\ {0, 1}) together with 
its complementary modulus fc' fulfilling k' = 1 ~ k^, can be interpreted as the 
simple ratio of the three roots of P (see below). The standard theta function 

^(z,r) = ^6""'^+2''"'^ (12) 


Let us also record the expressions for theta function with 2-characteristics (using 
Mumford's notation (|25j): 

§^^{z, t) = e^'«^'^+2'^»'^(^+b)^(z + aT + b, r) (13) 

where a,b (£ ^"L. Comparison with traditional notations yields i?oo = i^s, ^oi = 

The Jacobi modulus k of the attached elliptic curve can be recovered from 
T via the formula 

e = ^^H>il) = £l^£i (14) 

z?3 (0,t) ei-eg 

(this is the very motivation which led Jacobi to devising theta functions). 

Indeed, let us recall, for future use, the following expressions relating the 
Weierstrafi roots to theta functions: 

e2-e3=(^) ^2\0,t) ei-e2 = (^) V(0,r) (15) 

ei = ifp[z?3'(0,r) + ^/(0,T)] 

following from 

62 = ^[^2'*(0,r)-,9/(0,T)] (16) 

^3 = -if^[t?2'(0,T)+l?3'(0,r)], 

the beautiful Jacobi formula: 

^2'(0,r)+t?/(0,T)=z93'(0,r) (17) 

and, most important, the following transformation law: 

^i(z,r+l) = e*T^i(z,r) 

^2(^,T+1) = e'^Mz,T) 

^3(^,T+1) = t?4(z,r) 

^4(^,T+1) = ^3(2, t) 


Let us now consider the following modified theta function: 

t9(z,T)==e^('-*^)"'^'t?(z,T) (19) 

Notice that the prefactor e^ ^^"^^ ^ is invariant with respect to the trasforma- 
tion r I— > r + 1. It is this modified theta function that, in the algebro- geometric 
literature (see e.g. [H]) gives rise to the unique (up to a constant) holomor- 
phic section of the theta line bundle associated to a complex torus (and, in 
general, to a principally polarized abelian variety), which is actually the pre- 
quantum bundle ( [33 El HZ] , see also [SO])- This is readily generalized to the 
/c-level theta functions, which (up to constants) yield an orthonormal basis for 
the (fc-dimensional, by Riemann-Roch) quantum Hilbert space (see [T8ll21j). 

We record the relevant formulae, for definiteness (with a slightly different 
notation, also in order to avoid confusion with theta functions with character- 


for j = 0, . . . ,k — 1. A crucial fact for what follows is that the fc- level theta 
functions 9kj fulfil the (holomorphic) heat equation 

d 1 52 " 

Now, a straightforward computation shows that, under the trasformation r i-^ 
T + 1, the 2-level theta functions -82^ and i92,i, together with their "tilded" 
analogues, behave as follows 

^2,0(2, t+1) = (?2.o(2,t), 02,i(z,r+l) = e^^02,i(2,r) (22) 

Consider the vector bundle V ^ M, with Vr (fibre at r) given by the 2- 
dimensional complex vector space of 2-level theta functions with fixed parameter 

T. It comes equipped with the heat connection V, and the 2-level theta functions 
provide a basis of covariantly constant sections thereof, this being expressed by 
fulfilment of the heat equation. An important consequence is that, in particular, 
the natural S'L(2,Z)-action on H given by 

OT + b ,„„, 

T^ -J (23) 

(ad — be ~ 1), yields, in turn, a parallel displacement map Q{Z) : Vr —^ Vzt, 
for Z e S'L(2,Z) (along any path connecting the two points). Specifically, for 
the matrix Zq associated to the map r i— *■ r + 1, i.e. 

^o=(j ;) (24) 

one has the ("phase gate" }10j ) matrix, whereby we rephrase the transformation 
formula for the 92j^s and the 6*2 j's : 

Q{Zo) = (^J J.) (25) 

acting on the theta vector ^2 (-z) ~ (^2.0(^5 t), ^2, i(-z, 'J'))'^- Notice that Q(Zo)'* — 

We also remark that, by virtue of the preceding formulae, the map t t-^ t + 1 
determines a switch of the roots 62 and 63. This will be important in Subsection 

Finally we notice that, for ^3, one has 

1^3(0, T + 1) = ^4(0, r) = !^ii^^3(o,r) = a/F 793(0, r) (26) 

U3(L), rj 

(by the Jacobi formula), yielding a differential geometric interpretation of the 
Jacobi modulus. 

3 Hamiltonian monodromy and Geometric Quan- 

3.1 The Weinstein connection revisited 

In this Subsection we elaborate, in view of future use, on the canonical con- 
nection attached to the natural Lagrangian fibration in Liouville tori (|36p. see 
Subsection 12.21 as well, by rephrasing it in terms of vector bundles. 

The local action variables I = (/j) provide a local diffeomorphism between 
the set of regular values of the moment map B and R". On the trivial R"- 
bundle on the latter one has the natural flat connection induced by d. This is 
pulled back to B, and the local pieces glue together to yield a flat connection 
on the trivial M"-bundle thereon, which we call canonical and denote by V^"", 
whose holonomy /ioZ(V'^°") (with values in SL(n, Z)) is exactly the monodromy 
(also cf. [13 El El [M]). The upshot is the following: 

Proposition 3. 1. The local action variables build up, collectively, a covari- 
antly constant section ofW'^". 

2. The following relation between classical and quantum monodromy holds 

(cf. i^m) 

Ih = il^c)-^ (27) 

Part 2 immediately follows from dc Rham's theorem via 

= ([0],[7]) = {[eiZ-'-Z[^]) = {Z-^[6lZ[^]) (28) 

(duality pairing between iJi(A,R) and iJ^(A,M) and Z E SL{n,Z), via difFeo- 
morphism invariance J = J . 'fi*Q (obvious notation). 

3.2 Monodromy and prequantum connections 

Here we resume the discussion about the freedom of choice of the prequantum 
connection, by focussing on the case of Lagrangian fibrations in Liouville tori 
(cf. Subsection 12. ip . For a trivial Lagrangian bundle t/ x T" ^ C/ (actually, 
its total space), consider its prequantum line bundle L -^ [/ x T", with a 
prequantizing connection V, with local connection form given by a symplectic 
potential 9 determined, in a first instance, up to a closed form. We have two 
natural choices for the prequantum connection. 
Firstly, set 


V ^ e = ^ hdifk = I dip. (29) 


This may be called BS-adapted (or vertical) connection, since it just comes from 
a geometrical reformulation of the standard procedure. It fulfils 


Xb (30) 

with Xh any vector field on M tangent to a Lagrangian section, and it is flat 
along fibres. More intrinsically, given an adapted connection as above, the action 
variables may be recovered as follows: 

h ^T^ log hol{\/\ A, 7k) (31) 

where the 7fc's yield a basis of 1-cycles in A, this making their local character 
clear. Hence, monodromy may be viewed as the obstruction to patching together 
geometric prequantization bundles equipped with local BS-adapted connections. 
Of course there is no global obstruction to prequantization tout court, by Weil- 

Secondly, set 


y ^0' = -Y, fkdh = -dl ^ (32) 


This connection can be termed monodromy connection, since parallel transport 
along a non trivial loop contained in a local Lagrangian section {ip ~ c) (where- 
upon it is flat) produces a holonomy given by 

e-^'^^ (33) 


(obvious notation) tied to the possible non globality of the action variables. It 
can be characterised intrinsically as well by the requirement 

Vx, = X^ (34) 

(with X^ tangent to the fibres). So the freedom in choosing the prequantuni 
connection leads to detection of monodromy. 

Notice that in the case of i? is a multi-punctured domain, its fundamental 
group is a free group on m generators (if we have m punctures) . Now, the mon- 
odromy around a puncture can be "signed" , so the monodromy representation 
of suitable non trivial loops may nevertheless be trivial. 

3.3 Gauge equivalence of flat connections and monodromy 

In this Subsection we further specialise the general discussion outlined in Sub- 
section 12.31 and we address monodromy from a gauge theoretic point of view 
- encompassing Ngoc's treatment [571 IMI- Let A = T" be a Liouville torus. 
Then, we have already noticed, in Subsection 13.11 that, on the one hand, the 
homology group i?i(A,Z) is the arena of classical monodromy, stemming from 
an 5i(n,Z)-action on the classical cycles. The cohomology group iJ^(A,Z) is, 
on the other hand, a receptacle for quantum monodromy. 

Now, what is crucial in highlighting monodromy is that the finer notion of 
tJo-(in)equivalence should be used instead of mere gauge equivalence. This goes 
as follows. Resuming the discussion of Subsection 12.21 let us take the (integral, 
upon enforcing BS) de Rham class of V = V|a, i.e. [0], mapping to a point in 
Z" via the period map 

H\k, Z) 9 [e] ^ (^ f 9, ..., -!- / 6i) e Z" (35) 

.2^ A. 27r_„ , 

(where (71, . . . , 7„) is a basis of 1-cyclcs) and denote as BS, for convenience, the 
set of all classes [0v] (it is enough to consider BS-adapted connections). Then 
(obvious notation) 

BS^H\T\Z) = g-[Vo] (36) 

(with Vo a fixed flat connection). Thus BS is a tj- homogeneous space = Z", 
whereupon the group Go acts trivially. Hence G/Go — SL{n,Z) acts freely on 
BS, and provides the receptacle of a natural monodromy representation 

M:Tri{B)^G/Go = SL{n,Z) (37) 

The BS-wave functions are, in turn, characters of T", i.e. elements of its 
dual group, and the latter is isomorphic to Z". Explicitly one has a family 
of (flat) BS-connections Vu, (n G Z"), (which are all ^/-equivalent but not 
5o -equivalent) with covariantly constant section (up to a constant) 

s = X.(V) = e^"-^ (38) 

We set Tin =< Xn >■ Alternatively, we may proceed as follows and, in order to 
fix ideas, we take n ~ 2 and consider the shift induced by 712 i— > n2 + 1 ; it can be 
ascertained via the following procedure. Let —id^^ be the quantum observable 


on Tin associated to I2 (cf. also the more general discussion below) acting via 
-idv2Xn = "2Xn- If C^ : 'Hn -^ Km, with (toi,TO2) = (ni, 712 + 1) is the unitary 
operator sending Xn to x-rm one finds, on Tim, the shifted operator 







and this is again a flashing light for monodromy. If the basis of cycles on a 
model torus is kept fixed, monodromy can be detected as a switch to another 
BS-class: one has a shift of the action variables (cf. the parallel transport of 
lattices defined in [271 [^). 

More generally, let us perform a coordinate transformation on a fixed BS- 
torus (under our assumptions we may neglect the translational part) , and let us 
extend it to a canonical transformation in the ambient manifold M (in a fibre 
neighborhood of the torus in question) : 

I' = 1 Z 

Lp' = Zip 


{Z G SL{n,Z)). One has, indeed 

dI' = dIZ-\ dip' = Zdcp, d^' = Z-^d^ 


dl' A d(f' = dl Z~^ hZdLp = dI Ndip> = uj 

Now, the quantum operator associated to the action variable / according to the 
general formula given above is —id^p (the last two terms cancel out). This is 
checked immediately (obvious notation) 





but 9 = 1 dip and Xj = d^p , hence 

/ = -iXi ^ r = -iZ-'^d^ 



and, acting on Hn, reproduces the specific result above. The link with mon- 
odromy manifests itself via a non trivial SL{n, Z)-representation of tti (B) given 
by [1] '^ ^ = ^{[l])- It can be viewed as a product Z = Yl-Zi of transforma- 
tions involving two intersecting open charts whereupon no singularity is present. 
Upon tracing a circuit 7 surrounding an isolated singularity (of focus - focus 
type), one ends up with the Z above (cf. [26l[Tl]). Summing up, the shift occurs 
if and only if there is monodromy, and everything is stored in the commutative 
diagram below: 


where U is a fibre neighbourhood of a BS torus, Q is the quantization map 
producing the quantum Hilbert space, and C is the canonical transformation 


of the fibre neighbourhood onto itself described above and U the unitary map 
connecting primed and unprimed spaces. 

Notice that the general formula for the prequantum operator, when applied 
to /, should be appropriately restricted to a fibre neighbourhood of the torus 
under consideration. The monodromy action, via Z, changes the quantum op- 
erator. Indeed, in spectroscopy, monodromy manifests itself precisely through 
a shift of the energy levels, see e.g. [HI IB E] and references therein. 

The above discussion can be summarised by means of the following 
Theorem 4. (Gauge theoretic interpretation of monodromy) 

1. The monodromy representation can be viewed as a map 

M:TTi{B)^g/go = SLin,Z), (46) 

which acts transitively on BS , as expression \3b]) shows, and can be read 
both on wave functions and observables. 

2. Explicitly, upon choosing a BS- adapted connection, one can work either 
with a fixed basis of cycles, and then monodromy induces a change of 
connection and Hilbert space in a different Qo-class - this however can 
still be read on a single Hilbert space, cf. Ii39\) } - or, alternatively, with 
a change of coordinates, remaining in the same Hilbert space, causing 
eventually a change in the quantum action operator, |^^[ j. 

4 Hamiltonian monodromy via theta functions 

From now on we confine ourselves to completely integrable Hamiltonian systems 
with two degrees of freedom. 

4.1 The heat connection 

As we have already seen in Section 2, the 2-torus bundle / : M — > B has 
monodromy if and only is the holonomy of the Ehresmann connection V^'*'' on 
B is non-trivial. Now we can relate the monodromy of the fibration / to the 
holonomy of the heat connection introduced right below. 

Define a map tu : B D U ^ M via T{b) := -9(6) + iT{h) (notice that 
3(t) > 0) using a basis (71,72) for the cycles as in |27] (with the roles of the 7^ 
interchanged, also cf. Introduction). Note that this is the crucial point wherein 
two-dimensionality intervenes. 

Resuming the 2-level theta vector bundle y ^ H, one constructs the puUcd- 
back bundle 

tIjV^U (47) 

equipped with a flat connection V[/ = t^V (V is the "old" heat connection 
on the theta bundle). Gluing these local bundles together one ends up with a 
(smooth) vector bundle V ^ B, again endowed with a flat connection, called 
again heat connection and denoted by v'*'^"*. Clearly, in view of the discussion 
in Subsection 2.3, the following holds 

Theorem 5. Let {M,LU,h) be a completely integrable Hamiltonian system with 
two degrees of freedom, possessing a finite number of singularities of focus-focus 
type (cf. Subsection 2.1). Then 


1. The holonomy of the heat connection on V —t B , the pulled-hack 2-level 
theta vector bundle, relates to the holonomy of the canonical connection 
(Subsection 3.1) in the following guise 

hol{V^'"'') ^ QiholiV'^'''')) (48) 

2. As a corollary, the system has monodromy if the holonomy of the heat 
connection ft,o^(V'"^''*) is non trivial. 

Remarks. 1. The BS-picture can be traded for the theta-picture: the trac- 
ing of a non trivial path in tti (B) can be seen as a sort of adiabatic motion, 
causing the variation of the basis of cycles and thence of the parameter 
T. The overall action on the theta space is a sort of Berry phase (see e.g. 
[TU]). a signpost for monodromy. The point is that in the theta-picture 
we are essentially acting in a single quantum Hilbcrt space (in view of po- 
larization independence). This peculiarity pertains to the 2d-environment 
only. Wc also stress the fact that the monodromy map Q{Zo) yields a 
unitary operator (the crucial fact is that Qr does not change): this ex- 
plains the notation Q. If we read Zq classically, then Q{Zo) is precisely its 
quantum counterpart and takes the form of a "phase gate" , familiar from 
quantum computing in the qubit space C ([TH])- We notice in passing 
that the appearance of a finite group like Z4 (cf. Q{Zo)^ = 1^2) is to be 
expected on general grounds (cf. [2H[T6|). 

2. Wc point out an important difference between our approach and Tyurin's 
one ([34]): in the latter case the BS-torus becomes the real part of an 
abelian variety; in our case we have a 2d-BS-torus endowed with a complex 
structure. The latter is then holomorphically quantized via 2-level theta 
functions, the natural substitute for the BS-covariantly constant section 
whereupon the map r 1-^ r + 1 acts a la Berry. Hence there is no need 
of complexifying the manifold, study the ensuing complex monodromy 
and then coming back to the (mechanically relevant) real picture (see also 


So, to summarize, the monodromy can be ascertained via BS-wave functions, 
via t/Q-(in)equivalence and, in the 2d-case, via the theta function description as 
well, by means of the SL{2, Z)-action on the vector bundle determined by theta 
functions of level 2. 

4.2 Braiding and monodromy via theta functions 

In this Section we discuss the relationship between monodromy and the braiding 
of the WeiestraB roots. More details on the braid group and its relationship with 
the modular group PSL{2,'L) and, in particular, on related representations can 
be found e.g. in [H [31 [31 [S] . 

A (faithful) representation of the braid group B^ on C^ via SL{2,Z) can be 
realized by the matrices 

.. - (\ J) .. - il m 


Indeed one immediately checks the defining relation 61 62 61 = &2 &i ^2- Notice 

62 = (61)"^ (50) 

Also, one recognizes that the trasformation r i-^ t + 1 can be represented by 
&2- Thus the braid group generators are dual to each other, from the point of 
view of classical-quantum monodromy (see Subsection 3). 

This, in turn, can be read on the fundamental cycles, on the thetas, and on 
the Weierstrafi roots of the associated elliptic curve: ei 1— *■ ei, 62 1— »■ 63, 63 1-^ 62 
(see Subsection 2.3 and e.g. [21], [23])- The following reference formulae are 
helpful in making this point: 

f dz , f dz , ^ 

with Lo' = TLu, and where 71 surrounds 62 and 63 - passing to the other sheet 
of the ramified double cover, through the cut joining 63 to 00 - and 73 encircles 
ei and 62 (cf. [31| . fig. 19, p. 85). In our context, Tricomi's 73 is our 72 (the 
changing cycle) whilst Tricomi's 71 is our 71 (the fixed cycle). 
The above considerations immediately lead us to the following 

Theorem 6. In the case of an isolated focus-focus singularity, the variation of 
the rotation number is tantamount to the (multiple) switching of the roots ei 
and 63 (with the above conventions) . More precisely, if [7] is a generator for 
7ri(i?) ^ Z, then classical monodromy is represented via 

m • [7] ^ &2'" (52) 

whereas quantum monodromy is given by 

771 • [7] ^^ &l'" (53) 

In terms of the rotation number one obviously has 

e^e-m (54) 

5 The spherical pendulum revisited 

In this section we quickly point out a derivation of the monodromy of the spher- 
ical pendulum (the prototype of monodromic behaviour, see also e.g. [5]) via 
root braiding. We refer to [TT] for background and notation. The central object 
is the polynomial 

P{x)^2{h~x){l^x'^)~f. (55) 

The point (j, h) = (0, 1) is the only critical point in the (punctured) open 
"shield" (i.e. the B, in the present example). Consider the circuit 

j = ecost, h = 1 + esint, (56) 

for t G [0, 2tt) and e > small enough. The roots of P can be guessed via an 
er-power series expansion, which immediately leads to the (exact!) expressions 


COS ti S £ 

X- = -l + e^^^, x+ = 1- -(1-sini), a:° = l + -(l + sint) (57) 
8 2 2 

As for r = — B + iT, one has, for the spherical pendulum 

e.2,r* ^i^, T^2f"^ (58) 

y.- (l-I')^/P(JT y.- ^/P(JT 

The first integral is a sum of elliptic integrals of the third kind, whereas the 
second one is of the first kind. Now the basic result is 

Proposition 7. T is single-valued, whereas the variation of O along the above 
circuit equals —1. 

This recovers monodromy for the spherical pendulum ( [131 lll| . 

Sketch of Proof. One has to study the braiding of the roots of P along 
the closed path above; now, the only delicate point is that at some positions the 
roots x~, x+ reach the limiting positions —1 and +1, and, in the first integral, 
one has to cope with the onset of branching points, causing a rearrangement of 
the Riemann surface involved; but this occurs in a non symmetrical way and 
induces the overall variation asserted above. Nothing happens in the other case. 

6 Conclusions and outlook 

In this paper, acting within the framework provided by geometric quantization, 
we elaborated on the BS-wave function description of monodromy, by pointing 
out its connection to gauge theory, and via a theta function description as well, 
upon viewing the 5'L(2,Z)-action on the vector bundle built up from theta 
functions of level 2. We related monodromy to the braiding of the Weierstraf5 
roots of the elliptic curve pertaining to the complex structure r, again via theta 
functions. As a related application, we studied the monodromy of the spherical 
pendulum via braiding of the roots associated to the elliptic integrals appearing 
in the expression of the relevant r. This method is, in principle, applicable to 
general completely integrable Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom. 
Finally, we expect that a geometric quantization approach could be fruitful 
for dealing with the Chern-Duistermaat class as well. 

Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to A. Giacobbe and E. 
Previato for useful discussions. The research of N.S. has been supported by a 
grant (AdR 819/07 "Geometria globale dei sistemi completamente integrabili" ) 
from the Universita degli Studi di Verona, that of M.S. by the Italian M.I.U.R. 
(ex 60% funds). 


[1] V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, 2nd edition, Springer- 
Verlag, 1989. 

[2] V.I. Arnold and A.B. Givental, Symplectic Geometry. Dynamical Systems IV, 
1-138, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. 4, Springer, Berlin, 2001. 


[3] S. Axelrod, S. Delia Pietra and E. Witten, Geometric quantization of Chern- 
Simons gauge theory, J.Diflt.Geom. 33 (1991), 787-902. 

[4] M. Audin, Hamiltonian Monodromy via Picard-Lefschetz Theory, Comm. Math. 
Phys. 229 (2002), 459-489. 

[5] L.M. Bates, Monodromy m the champagne bottle, ZAMP 42 (1991), 837-847. 

[6] A. Benvegnu and M. Spera On Uncertainty, Braiding and Entanglement in Geo- 
metric Quantum Mechanics, Rev.Math.Phys.18 (2006), 1075-1102. 

[7] J.L. Brylinski, Loop Spaces, Characteristic Classes and Geometric Quantization, 
Birkhauser, Basel, 1993. 

[8] M.S. Child, Quantum states in Champagne Bottle, J.Phys.A, 31 (1998), 657-670. 

[9] M.S. Child, T. Weston and J. Tennyson, Quantum monodromy in the spectrum 
of H2O and other species: new insight into the quantum level structure of quasi- 
linear molecules, Mol. Phys. 96 (1999), 371. 

[10] D. Chruscihski and A. Jamiolkowski, Geometric Phases in Classical and Quantum 
Mechanics, Birkhauser, Boston, 2004. 

[11] R.H. Cushman and L. Bates, Global Aspects of Classical Integrable Systems, 
Birkhauser, Basel, 1997. 

[12] P. Dazord and T. Delzant, Le probleme general des variables actions-angles, J. 
Diff. Geom. 26 (1987), 223-251. 

[13] J.J. Duistermaat, On global action-angle coordinates, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 
33 (1980), 687-706. 

[14] K. Efstathiou, M. Joyeux and D.A. Sadovskii, Global bending quantum number 
and absence of monodromy in the HON ^-> CNH molecule, Phys. Rev. A, 69 (2004), 

[15] F. Fasso, Superintegrable Hamiltonian systems: geometry and perturbations. Acta 
Applicandae Mathematicae 87 (2005), 93-121. 

[16] P. Griffiths and J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, J. Wiley & Sons, 
New York, 1978. 

[17] N.J. Hitchin, Flat Connections and Geometric Quantization, Commun.Math. 
Phys. 131 (1990), 347-380. 

[18] G. Kempf, Complex Abelian Varieties and Theta Functions, Springer, Berlin, 1991 

[19] A. A. Kirillov, Geometric Quantization, Dynamical Systems IV, 139-176, Ency- 
clopaedia Math. Sci. 4, Springer, Berlin, 2001. 

[20] B. Kostant, Quantization and unitary representations. I. Prequantization. Lec- 
tures in modern analysis and applications. III, pp. 87-208. Lecture Notes in Math., 
Vol. 170, Springer, Berlin, 1970. 

[21] A. Loi, The function epsilon for complex Tori and Riemann surfaces. Bull. Belgian 
Math.Soc. Simon Stevin, 7 (2000), 229-236. 

[22] H. McKean and V. Moll, Elliptic curves, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

[23] G.D. Mostow, Braids, hypergeometric functions, and lattices. Bull. Am. Math.Soc. 
16 (1987), 225-246. 

[24] J.D. Moore, Lectures on Seiberg- Witten invariants. Springer, New York, 1998. 

[25] D. Mumford, Tata lectures on theta I. With the collaboration of C. Musili, 
M. Nori, E. Previato and M. Stillman. Reprint of the 1983 edition. Modern 
Birkhauser Classics. Birkhauser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2007. 


[26] N.N. Nekhoroshev, Action-angle variables, and their generalizations (Russian) 
Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obsc. 26 (1972), 181-198. English translation: Transac- 
tions of the Moscow Mathematical Society for the year 1972 (Vol. 26) . Cover to 
cover translation of Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obsc. 26 (1972) prepared jointly by the 
American Mathematical Society and the London Mathematical Society. American 
Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1974. 

[27] S. Vri Ngoc, Quantum monodromy in integrable systems, Commun.Math.Phys. 
203 (1999), 465-479. 

[28] S. Vu Ngoc, Quantum Monodromy and Bohr-Sommerfeld rules, Lett. Math. Phys. 
55 (2001), 205-217. 

[29] J.M. Souriau, Structure des systemes dynamiques. (French), Dunod, Paris 1970. 

[30] M. Spera Quantization on abelian varieties. Rend. Sem. Mat. Politec. Torino, 44 
(1986), 383-392. 

[31] F. Tricomi, Funzioni ellittiche, Zanichelli, Bologna, 1937. 

[32] L Tuba, Low- dimensional representations of Bs, Proc.Amer.Math.Soc. 129 
(2001), 2597-2606. 

[33] L Tuba and H. Wenzl, Representations of the braid group Bz and of SL{2,Z), 
Pacific J. Math. 197 (2001), 491-509. 

[34] A.N. Tyurin, Quantization, Classical and Quantum Field Theory and Theta Func- 
tions, CRM Monographs Series, vol. 81, 2003. 

[35] O. Vivolo, The monodromy of the Lagrange top and the Picard-Lefschetz formula, 
J.Geom.Phys. 46 (2003), 99-124. 

[36] A. Weinstein, Symplectic manifolds and their Lagrangian submanifolds, 
Adv.Math.16 (1971), 329-346. 

[37] E.T. Whittaker and G.N. Watson, A course of Modern Analysis, Cambridge Uni- 
versity Press, Cambridge, 1927, (4th Edition, reprinted 1980). 

[38] E. Witten Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial, Commun.Math.Phys. 
121 (1989), 351-399. 

N.N. Woodhouse, Geometric Quantization. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992. 



N.T. Zung, A note on focus-focus singularities, Diff.Geom.Appl. 7 (1997), 123-